I want to buy a new board and processor, but I'm mulling over which processor I should get.
Getting an AMD with the FSB of 333 is a no brainer. The question is: Do I trade Cache & price over MHz?
It's a $100 difference and 400MHz. Here's what I usually do with my machine:
- ACT! 2000 Database
- E-mail, Web
- Lots of DVD viewing
- Dual or triple Digital LCD monitor support (Matrox Parhelia probably)
- MP3 Audio
- CD Burning/Copying
- Games (Dungeon Siege/Star Trek Bridge Commander, maybe the new version of Unreal or Quake - but they aren't my first choice)
I would be getting the Asus A7N8X Deluxe and run Windows 2000 or XP, Dual Channel DDR400 with 512MB of RAM, Serial ATA 150.
I'd get the 2500. The extra cache should make a difference and it should run a little cooler. Kinda wish Tom's would compare CPUs of the same price range regardless of Mhz. This would truly show us which gives the most bang for the buck. Intel is definetly the power king but is it worth the extra money?
I'm not really concerned about heat.. The 400MHz difference is going to affect DVD playback during 'work' and also games.
When I play games, I wonder when the game play slows down, whether it's a videocard/bandwidth issue or processor. Since there is a lot of 'stuff' going on (Bridge Commander/Dungeon Seige - AI and graphics). These games don't require the frame rate speed of Quake/Unreal so....